Misplaced Pages

Christ myth theory: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:00, 28 April 2006 editSophia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,626 edits rv huge undiscussed change - WP is indeed NOT a soapbox← Previous edit Revision as of 23:31, 28 April 2006 edit undoA.J.A. (talk | contribs)2,782 edits RV with some changesNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{totally disputed}} {{totally disputed}}


The '''Jesus Myth''' is a historical ] usually associated with a ] position on the ], which claims that ] did not exist as an historical figure, but was, instead, an abstract, symbolic, and ] allusion to a higher knowledge. The ], based in part on the lack of extant contemporaneous documents or other historically reliable evidence about his life, has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians{{ref|opponents}}. The '''Jesus Myth''' is a historical ] usually associated with a ] position on the ], which claims that ] did not exist as an historical figure, but was instead an amalgamation of mythological figures. The theory has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians{{ref|opponents}} and no peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory exists.


==Background==


==History==
The term "Jesus Myth" actually covers a broad range of ideas, but they all fundamentally share the common premise that the narrative of the ] portrays a figure who never actually lived. Current theories arose from nineteenth century scholarship on the formation of myth, in the work of writers such as ] and ]. Müller argued that religions originated in mythic stories of the birth, death and rebirth of the sun. Frazer further attempted to explain the origins of humanity's mythic beliefs in the idea of a "sacrificial king", associated with the sun as a ]. According to Frazer, the king's death and rebirth was connected to the regeneration of the earth in springtime and was often required for the continuity of a ritual-based community.


Some have suggested that the idea dates to New Testament times, citing the ]'s warning of "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." All reputable scholars of the period believe that these early quotes refer to ], belief that Jesus appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.
===Ancient fore-runners?===


The first proponent of this theory was probably ] ] ], a ] thinker who argued that the true founder of ] was the Alexandrian ] ], who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with ] mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under writers such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the ], were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.
Some, including ] and ] in their book ], have suggested that the idea itself is as old as the New Testament as the ] warns of "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." This view was shared by ] (110-160 A.D.), who compiled the first version of the New Testament as early as 144 A.D., and whose followers, the Marcionites, continued until the 4th Century.


By the early ] a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and ] ]. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was ]'s ''The Christ-Myth'' (1909) which argued that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.
], Bishop of Antioch, in 115 A.D. in the "Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, near Zarbus," urged her: "Avoid those that deny the passion of Christ, and His birth according to the flesh; and there are many at present who suffer under this disease." The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in chapter 7 says: "For anyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist," apparently quoting 1 John 4:3.


While aspects of the theory were influential, mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.
Proponents argue that had Jesus been a true historical figure there would not have been such a large number of prominent people who denied his existence, or an even larger number who defended him. Such controversies never developed over other contemporary religious figures (e.g., John the Baptist, Paul, James the Just, Hillel, Honi the Circledrawer). Scholars of the period however believe that these early quotes refer to ], belief that Jesus mystically appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.


In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by ] and ] (''The Jesus Legend'' and ''The Jesus Myth''), as well as by ] and ] (co-authors of '' ]'' and ''Jesus and the Lost Goddess''), and the ] (author of '']'').
==Early proponents==


==Claims==
The first scholarly proponent of this theory was probably ] ] ], a ] thinker who argued that the true founder of ] was the Alexandrian ] ], who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with ] mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under Dutch Bible scholars such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the ], were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.


Figures alleged to have been models for Jesus include:
By the early ] a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory, ranging from the highly speculative to the more scholarly. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and ] ]. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was ]'s ''The Christ-Myth'' (1909) which brought together the scholarship of the day in defence of the idea that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.


*]
While aspects of the theory were influential, most mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion that "Jesus" was little more than a fiction, arguing that the ], Pauline epistles and ] contained some reliable information about the events they describe. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.
*]

*]
==Recent scholarship==
*]

*]
In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by ] and ] (''The Jesus Legend'' and ''The Jesus Myth''), as well as by ], philosopher and expert on mysticism, and ], a scholar of ] (co-authors of '' ]'' and ''Jesus and the Lost Goddess''), and the noted humanist ] (author of '']''), a scholar of Ancient History and Classical Languages.
*]

There are many different views regarding the nature of the early texts. Earl Doherty argues that Jesus is a historicized mythic figure created out of the ], whom the early Christians experienced in visions, as ] says he did. ], on the other hand, argues that Jesus is the deliberate and malefic creation of powerful ] of the family of ], who sought to divide and destroy ]. Hence in Atwill's version, there really is a historical Jesus, but he is Vespasian's son Titus, and the gospels are a complex allegory of his conquest of ].

Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory do not agree on the dating and meaning of the early Christian texts, with recent advocates like Doherty holding to traditional scholarly dating that puts the gospels toward the end of the ], and others, like ] (''The Fabricated Paul''), arguing that the early Christian texts are largely forgeries and products of the mid and late ].

Presently, most New Testament scholars and historians consider the question as resolved in favour of Jesus' historicity. Nevertheless, ] has infused the Jesus Myth theory with fresh vigour with his website and publication of his book, ''].'' Doherty's treatment of the issue has received much attention on the internet from both sides of the debate, including favourable reviews by skeptics Dr. ] and ] .

No peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory exists and it has had little impact on the consensus among New Testament academics of Jesus' historicity.

==Specific arguments of the theory==

===Notable omissions in extant contemporary records===

Some of the strongest evidence against the historicity of Jesus lies in the fact that no mention of him or the events of the New Testament can be found in any of the numerous contemporary and near-contemporary records of the day.

====Philo (] - ])====

By far, the most notable omission is ]'s. Philo was a Hellenized Jew who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. He visited the Temple in Jerusalem, and corresponded with family there. He wrote a great many books on religion and philosophy which survive to this day, and mentioned many of his contemporaries. His main theological contribution was the development of the ], the "Word" that opens the ]. Yet Philo not once mentions Jesus, anybody who could be mistaken for Jesus, or any of the events of the New Testament. His last writings come from 40 CE, only a few years after the end of ]'s reign, when he was part of an embassy sent by the Alexandrian Jews to the Roman Emperor ].



====Plutarch (ca. ] - ]) ====

] wrote, about the same time as Josephus, about contemporary Roman figures, oracles, prophesies, and moral, religious, and spiritual issues. A figure such as Jesus, whom the Gospels portray as interacting with Roman figures, making prophecies, and giving sermons on novel religious and spiritual issues, would have been of great interest to him.

====Justus====

{{disputed-section}}

] wrote, at the end of the first century, a history of Jewish kings in Galilee. As the Gospels record Jesus as having significant interactions with the Jewish political and religious leaders, as well as the highest-ranking local Roman officials, one would expect Justus to have made mention of those events. Not all of his writing has survived intact to this day, but none of what does exist makes mention of Jesus. Further, no mention is made--especially by early Christian apologists--of such a reference, even by writers who would have had access to his complete works.

====Josephus (ca. ] - ca. ])====

For those who reject the authenticity of both the ] and the ], ] would belong on this list. Naturally, those who accept the authenticity of one or the other, in whole or in part, see Josephus as providing evidence for an historical Jesus and thus would object to Josephus's inclusion. As the only first-century non-Christian to perhaps write of Jesus, the two brief mentions to be found in ] (written ca. 94) are the subject of often-heated debate.

====Others====

There are a number of other sources that survive from the period in which it would not have been unreasonable to find mention of Jesus, though in no particular case would one be surprised to find mention of Jesus lacking. However, Jesus is missing from all of them.

These include: ], who wrote of ], a philosopher and mystic who was a contemporary with Jesus; ], who wrote, in ], a Natural History that mentions hundreds of people, major and minor; ], ], ], and ], Roman satirists who favored topics similar to Jesus's story; ], whose massive Guide to Greece includes mentions of thousands of names, including minor Jewish figures in Palestine; historians ] and ], who both recorded events and people in Palestine; and ] who, in the second century, scandalized rites about Roman Christians without ever mentioning Jesus.

Other writers and historians of the time who did not mention Jesus include Dio Chrysostom, Aulus Gellius, Lucius Apuleius, Marcus Aurelius, Musonius Rufus, Hierocles of Alexandria, Cassius Maximus Tyrius, Arrian, Appian, Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Lucius Annaeus Florus, and Marcus Annaeus Lucanus.

===Biblical contradictions===

The Christian Bible is a collection of the majority of documents supporting the historicity of Jesus, and the only reliable sources for details on his life. Those who advocate the theory that Jesus is a myth consider contradictions in the Bible to impeach the credibility of those documents. Those who oppose the theory generally consider the contradictions to be inconsequential and largely the result of the orally-transmitted roots of the documents. A significant minority of Christians hold to the concept of ] and assert that contradictions are apparent only and result from human failings to properly interpret the Bible.

The following is a partial listing of claims by skeptics of contradictions in major biographical details of Jesus's life and death. Those who deny the historicity of Jesus would claim that facts such as these should not be in dispute.

====Genealogy====

Matthew 1:1-16 traces Jesus's lineage from King David's son Solomon through to Joseph's father, Jacob. Luke 3:23-31 traces a completely different lineage from King David's son Nathan to Joseph's father, Heli. Christian apologists traditionally explain this discrepancy by suggesting that one records a patrilineal genealogy while the other a matrilineal one, but both identify different fathers for Joseph and neither mentions Mary. Further, there is no historical precedent for indicating a matrilineal genealogy for a first-century Jewish man, and especially not to establish that man's royal heritage.

====Early childhood====

According to Matthew 2:13-16, Mary and Joseph fled with the infant Jesus to Egypt in order to escape Herod's slaughtering of "all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under." The family does not return until the end of Herod's reign. In Luke 2:39-40, the holy family returns directly to Nazareth from Bethlehem, traveling to Jerusalem every year for the ] feast. No mention of any acts of infanticide is made.

====The Disciples====

The ] were twelve men personally selected by Jesus and who served as his traveling companions throughout his ministry. They would have come to know each other as well as any close family member.

Matthew 4:18-20 and Mark 4:18-20 both recount the same story of how Jesus selected his first Apostle, Peter, but the stories of Peter's selection from Luke 5:2-11 and John 1:35-42 are completely different. However, many apologetists might argue that Matthew and Mark's accounts just say where Peter was found, that Luke's account goes indepth, that John's talks about how the news of the Messiah was told to Peter, and who knew in Luke that Jesus claimed to be Lord.]

Matthew 10:2 and Mark 3:16-19 both list the same set of Disciples. Luke 6:13-16 omits Thaddaeus and includes Judas son of James in his place. Acts 1:13,26 agrees with Luke but adds that the remaining Disciples chose Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. John neither provides a list nor indicates their number, though it does mention nine of them by name at various places.

====The trial====

According to Matthew 26:18-20, 26:57-68, 27:1-2, Mark 14:16-18, 14:53-72, and 15:1, Jesus's initial hearing was at night on the first evening of Passover; in the morning, he was taken to ]. Luke 22:13-15 and 54-66 record the hearing as having taken place in the morning, and in John 18:28 and 19:14 it happened the day before. This is especially significant as the first evening of Passover was and is one of the holiest days of the year for Jews, a day on which conducting business of any kind would be anathema.

In Matthew 26:59-66 and Mark 14:55-64, Jesus is tried by the entire ], the Jewish high court. In Luke 22:66-71, there was no trial, but only an inquiry held by the Sanhedrin. In John 18:13-24, Jesus was never brought before the Sanhedrin at all; Jesus only had private hearings before Annas and Caiphas.

Matthew 27:11-14 reports that Jesus maintained a stoic silence at his hearing before Pilate. According to John 18:33-37, Jesus answered all the charges eloquently and at length.

The chief priests and elders persuade the people to demand the release of Barabbas in Matthew 27:20, whereas in Mark 15:11 only the chief priests are responsible, and in Luke 23:18-23 the people seem to decide for themselves without prompting from leadership.

====The Resurrection====

Biblical accounts of the resurrection differ on a great number of details of varying significance, including who was at and who went to the tomb, when they arrived, whether nor not the stone covered the tomb, whether or not there was an earthquake, who did what afterwards, how and to whom Jesus made his initial appearances after his resurrection, and the reactions of those he appeared to. The discrepancies are generally attributed to either an understandable confusion on the part of those who witnessed this most extraordinary event, or a sure sign of multiple sources offering creative fictional interpretation of an event they were not witness to themselves.

====The Ascension====

In both Mark 16:14-19 and Luke 24:50-51, the ] takes place the same day as the Resurrection. In Mark, while seated at a table in or near Jerusalem, Jesus commands the Disciples to spread the Gospel and tells them that they may identify themselves to unbelievers by their invulnerability to poison and abilities to heal the sick and then is received into Heaven. In Luke, the Disciples are outdoors at Bethany where Jesus was in the act of blessing them when he was carried up to Heaven.

In Acts 1:9-12, forty days have passed, during which Jesus continued to preach the Gospel. The Disciples are northeast of Bethany, at Mount Olivet. Jesus delivers a brief final message to his Disciples and is taken up and received by a cloud. Two men, clothed in white, appear out of nowhere to tell the Disciples that Jesus will return in the same manner as he was taken.

Matthew contains no mention of the Ascension.

===Events only recorded in the Bible===

In addition to the numerous contradictions in the Bible's own account of Jesus's life, those who reject the historicity of Jesus consider the numerous spectacular events recorded only in the Bible and nowhere else as irreparably condemning the Bible's reliability as a historical account.

Those who hold to the historicity of Jesus generally, though not universally, acknowledge that the Bible is not to be considered the literal truth, and that it contains many obviously-mythical elements; rather, they consider what follows to be later additions to the core truth of the historical Jesus, in much the same way that a caught fish gets bigger each time in the re-telling. Those who hold that Jesus is a myth see no evidence that any fish was ever caught in the first place.

====Star of Bethlehem====

Although many explanations have been offered for the ], no actual record of any such astronomical phenomenon can be found.



====Flight to Egypt====

Also as mentioned above, Matthew 2:13-16 records the holy family as having fled to Egypt. Though they may well have remained incognito while they lived there, the Bible says nothing on the matter one way or the other. If they did not keep their identities hidden, it is most likely that Philo, who was living in Alexandria at this time, would have recorded the presence of the prophesied and persecuted future King of the Jews.

====Public miracles====

The Bible records Jesus as having performed some very public miracles, in front of crowds numbering, in some cases, in the thousands. He healed the sick, blind, and lame; he raised the dead; he walked on water; and he fed multitudes with table scraps. History is replete with people doing such deeds, but every other instance is universally assumed to be mythic fiction.

====Public ministry====

Jesus preached the ] to a crowd of "multitudes," and the ] to "great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases." This clearly indicates that Jesus must have been a popular figure known throughout the entire region; yet, no mention is made of any preacher giving such a sermon to such crowds.

====The trial====

Jesus's trial is notable for what it describes as a great many of the most egregious possible violations of Jewish and Roman law and custom by all officials involved. The trial is said to have taken place during ], one of the holiest holidays for Jews then and now, on which such activities are most strictly forbidden. There was no need for the Jews to appeal to Roman authority for assistance in the trial; they had full authority from the Romans to execute anybody for any reason sanctioned by their own laws. There was even less reason for the Romans to agree to intervene in what would have been to them internecine provincial politics. The behavior of the Sanhedrin, such as spitting on Jesus, would have been just as shocking to people then as would similar action by the members of the United States Supreme Court today. If Pilate had agreed to take the case, he would not have permitted an unruly mob to have remained present, let alone have a say in the trial. While the Romans courts, like all courts, surely freed the guilty and executed the innocent, they never would have publicly declared their intention to do so any more than would any modern court; Pilate's acquiescence in granting the mob Barabbas in exchange for Jesus is incomprehensible. Finally, had Pilate actually acted as described, Rome would have had his head on a platter, figuratively if not literally, for letting a mob dictate his actions as well as for general gross misconduct.

In short, if even one aspect of the trial happened as described, it would have caught the attention--and raised the ire--of a great many important people in the region and beyond. If all of it happened as described, it would have been the most scandalous trial of the millennium.

====The crucifixion====

While there are undoubtedly many people who were crucified who remain unknown to history, various records of countless crucifixions survive. Romans saw ] as a most ignominious way to die, and, as such, crucifixions often caught the attention of local historians. Sometimes Romans would crucify hundreds of people a day, but they also crucified people singly or in small groups. Josephus records many of these, including that of a Jesus who was the son of a man named Stada, but nobody recorded any crucifixion of a charismatic rebel preacher who could be mistaken for Jesus Christ.

====Portents at Jesus's death====

The Gospels record ominous portents as having occurred at the time of Jesus's death. As recorded in Matthew 27:45-54 and similarly in the other synoptic Gospels, a three-hour darkness was "over all the land"; the veil of the temple was rent; there was an earthquake; and the graves opened and dead saints "appeared unto many" in Jerusalem.

No eclipse would have been astronomically possible at the time; Pesach, according to the lunar calendar, always is celebrated with the start of the full moon, and eclipses can only happen when the moon is new. Further, no eclipse ever lasts for more than a few minutes--let alone three hours. No account of this most remarkable event, visible from "all the land," can be found outside the Gospels.

Records of major earthquakes from the period are rather comprehensive, yet no recorded earthquake happened at a time when the crucifixion could have happened.

The rending of the veil of the temple would have been a most remarkable occurrence, yet it remained intact until the temple was destroyed in ] CE.

Had presumably all the graves in the area been opened and a corresponding number of dead saints "appeared unto many" in Jerusalem, it is absolutely certain that those many would have reported the fact, yet none did.

====The Resurrected Jesus====

Acts 1:3 says that, for forty days after his resurrection, Jesus continued his ministry, yet no extra-Biblical record can be found of the most remarkable fact of a man, very publicly executed, continuing to do for over a month that which got him executed in the first place.

====The Ascension====

According to Acts 1:9, Jesus ] to Heaven from atop ], which would have been in full view of all of Jerusalem. Once more, no account of the Ascension can be found outside of the Bible.

===Early non-Christian references to Jesus===

As far as is known at present, only about six or seven early non-Christian references to Jesus appear to exist. This is despite the high degree of literacy in the Roman world, and despite the relatively large number of Roman and Jewish commentators and historians writing in the ]. The paucity of non-Christian evidence is, to advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, an ] that Jesus was a later invention. To critics of the Jesus Myth theory, the silence is attributed to the relative unimportance of the historical Jesus at the time as viewed by Romans, Greeks, and most Jews. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory counter this response by noting that all the evidence which does exist to support Jesus--mainly, the Gospels--describes a monumental figure, performing wondrous miracles and butting heads with the most prominent figures of the day, not some inconsequential nobody.

Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory point out that the earliest references to Jesus are by Christian writers (in the New Testament and ]). Of the few non-Christian references, almost all merely mention the existence of Christians and their belief, rather than explicitly mentioning Jesus as having existed. The most cited example for a non-Christian reference to Jesus is ] (] ] - c. ] CE), whose ''Antiquities'', written in ] CE (more than two generations after most Christian scholars date the ]), as preserved in the writings of the ] ], contain two references to a Jesus as the founder of a sect.

The first reference, the ], contains content that affirms core religious tenets of Christianity rejected by Judaism and thus is most uncharacteristic of a lifelong Jew such as Josephus. It is not mentioned by ] Christian authors, though several scholars have proposed that when stripped of the implausible Christian phrases, the core witness to a ''Jesus'' as a leader of a sect is reliable .

The second reference, which merely mentions that a person named ''Jesus'' was the brother of a person named ''James'' who is traditionally identified as ], is also disputed , though it is mostly--though not universally--regarded as significantly more likely to be authentic than the ''Testamonium'' . Nevertheless, the Hebrew form of ''Jesus'', a colloquial form of the name ''Joshua'', was a particularly common name at the time, and the second reference provides only Jesus's name, identification as the Christ ("Messiah" or "anointed one"), and relationship to James.

===Paul's presentation of Jesus===

Several of the ] are regarded as not authentic by a majority of Scholars, the ] being singled out as least likely to be genuine by over two thirds. When the ] is considered, the epistles can be split into two groups - the seven considered by almost everyone to be genuine, against the rest. In this division, the theology of the disputed group seems, in the eyes of a majority of scholars, to be quite distinct from the theology of the seven undisputed letters. For some writers it is almost as if the disputed group were written specifically to counter the group thought to be genuine.{{cite needed}}

Although there are occasional references in the disputed group to a flesh-and-blood Jesus, the undisputed group contains limited mention of Jesus as a historic figure. Even though Paul's letters are widely regarded as the earliest Christian documents, they contain very few references to Jesus' actual life and ministry, which the later Gospels detail. Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory claim that Paul's letters were written in response to specific problems unrelated to the details of the life of Jesus, and so the occasional and epistolary nature of Paul's correspondence are sufficient explanations for the lack of detail of Jesus' life. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory note an abundance of missed rhetorical opportunities to reinforce Paul's points by quoting Jesus or citing well-known events in his life that were directly relevant to the topics he was discussing.

Several commentators, from writers whose theories have not received widespread acceptance, such as ], to widely respected academics and experts in the field, such as Harvard professor ], have argued that Paul's writing should be interpreted as ]. Christianity arose under a heavy Hellenic culture, Paul himself growing up in ], the centre of one of the major ]s of the time, and Pagels and Doherty (and others) believe that Paul's writing should be viewed in the context of the Hellenic culture which formed his background.

Gnosticism, a diverse religion some of whose branches used some Christian names and ideas and which flourished and subsequently died out in the first through fourth centuries, frequently used ] and ] to guide its initiates towards ''salvation'', which Gnosticism viewed as a form of knowledge ('']''). Many Gnostic groups even regarded Jesus himself as an allegory, rather than historic, and ] was rife in Gnostic groups. Advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe that many parts of the New Testament were written as Gnostic documents, and that Paul's writing is a prominent example of ]. Accordingly, in this interpretation, those references in the undisputed epistles that appear to refer to events on earth, and a physical historic Jesus, should instead be regarded as allegorical metaphors . These interpretations, of for example Galatians 1:19, 3:16, 4:4, Romans 1:3, 3:1, 15:8, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, 15:4, are regarded by opponents of the Jesus Myth theory as based on forced and erroneous translations .

===The influence of the Old Testament===

According to a majority of scholars, the ] - the strong similarities between three of the gospels, is most accurately resolved by the ], according to which most of the content of ] and ] were copied wholesale from the ] and a lost collection of quotations known as the ], with which the ] is the most similar document of the era. In the small amount of additional material unique to Matthew, amongst the three, Jesus is presented in a way that has strong parallels with significant Old Testament figures, most noticeably ], whose birth narrative, and sojourn in the wilderness, Matthew appears to have used as the basis of that of Jesus.

It is widely accepted that the Gospel accounts were influenced by the Old Testament. In particular, many quotations attributed to the Q document, which the Gospels attribute to Jesus, find parallels in several places of the Old Testament. Advocates of the Jesus Myth believe that the gospels are not history but a type of ]: creative narratives based on the stories, prophecies, and quotes in the Hebrew Bible. In particular, there is no reason to assume that the sayings attributed to Q, a document theoretically devoid of narrative, originated with Jesus, rather than just being a collection of wisdom from several independent sources, such as the Old Testament. As such, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory claim that when the midrashic elements are removed, little to no content remains that could be used to demonstrate the existence of an historical Jesus .

Though conceding that the gospels may contain some creativity and midrash, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the gospels are more akin to ancient Graeco-Roman biographies. Although scholars do not agree on the exact nature of this genre, associated works attempted to impart historical information about historical figures, but were not comprehensive and could include legendary developments. Nevertheless, as ancient biographies, proponents of Jesus' existence believe they contain sufficient historical information to establish his historicity.

Although there are many types of midrash, the ] jumps out as being the most similar to the proposal that characters and situations were invented wholesale according to religious dogma and Old Testament prophecy. However, opponents of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that the closest parallels to potential Moses-based embellishment of the Jesus narrative, are inapplicable. Moreover, there are many examples of ancient Jewish and Christian literature that shaped their stories and accounts according to Old Testament influence, but nevertheless provided some historical accounts ; for example, in ], Judas and his battles are described in terms which parallel those of Saul's and David's battles against the Philistines in ], but nevertheless 1 Maccabees has a degree of respect amongst historians as having a reasonable degree of historical reliability (John R. Bartlett, ''The First and Second Books of Maccabees'', p. 15-17).

===Parallels with Mediterranian mystery religions===

Some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory have argued that many aspects of the Gospel stories of Jesus have remarkable parallels with ] in the widespread ]s prevalent in the hellenic culture amongst which Christianty was born. The central figure of one of the most widespread, ], was consistently localised and deliberately merged with local deities in each area, since it was the ''mysteries'' which were imparted that were regarded as important, not the method by which they were taught. In the view of some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory, most prominently ] and ] in ], Jewish mystics adapted their form of Osiris-Dionysus to match prior Jewish heroes like Moses and Joshua, hence creating Jesus.

Several parallels are frequently cited by these advocates, and often appear, somewhat less carefully mixed with more dubious parallels, on internet sites. The most prominently cited and plausible parallels are with ] and ]. Horus was one of the life-death-rebirth deities, and was connected and involved in the resurrection of ], whose Egyptian name (''Asar'') is very similar to the ] of ]. Some versions of the ] report that Horus fed 5000 with just a few loaves of bread, since he was born and lived at the ''house of bread'' (it was a historic capital of Egypt, and grain store), which translated into Hebrew is '']'', and was named ] in Egyptian, which translated into Hebrew is '']'' (''house of Any/Anu'').

In Egyptian myth, Horus gained his authority by being anointed by Anubis, who had his own cult, and was regarded as the main anointer; the anointing made Horus into ''Horus karast'' (a religious ] written in Egyptian documents as ''HR KRST'') - embalmed/anointed Horus - in parallel to Jesus becoming ''Christ'' by being baptised by John, who had his own followers, and was especially regarded as a baptiser. Worship of ], Horus' mother, was a prominent cult, and the proposal that this is the basis of '']'' of ], and more particularly ], has some merit.

The suggestion of parallels with such myths, however, has frequently gained little traction in the academic community. It is certainly the case that advocates of the Jesus Myth theory citing the parallels are frequently let down by citing dubious sources, choosing to include even ridiculous or implausible parallels, advocating particular theologies to replace Christianity, and using non standard terms (e.g. ''anup the baptiser'' rather than ''Anubis the anointer/embalmer'') which others fail to recognise.

Opponents of the Jesus Myth theory regularly accuse those who advocate the existence of such parallels of confusing the issue of who was borrowing from whom , a charge which was also made in ancient times by prominent early Christians. However, it is notable that, unlike modern opponents, several prominent early Christians, like ], actually acknowledged the existence of many parallels, complaining that the earlier religions had ''copied'' Christian religion and practices, before Jesus was even born, as some form of ] inspired ] mockery. For their part, the historic opponents of early Christians wrote that Christians had the same religion and practice as they, but were too stupid to understand it.

In later years, Mithras worship became the most prominent rival to Christianity, and the idea that many Christian practices, including 25th December being Jesus' birth-date, and Sunday being the dedicated day of worship, derived originally from Mithraism is regarded as likely by many mainstream historians. Mithras was a solar deity, and so was seen as being born just after the ], and the day each week officially dedicated to him by the Roman empire was later renamed the ''day of the invincible sun'', in turn being renamed ''Sunday''; the references in Luke and Matthew, though, point to Jesus being more likely to have been born in April or September, and Saturday was the original day of Christian worship before ] moved it. Parallels between Mithras and the birth-narrative of Luke are also proposed by some advocates of the Jesus myth, since Mithras, as a sun god, was born under the zodiac sign that at that time was known as the ''stable of Augeas'', though these latter parallels are not so supported in the academic community.

When Christianity became the official and only religion in the Roman Empire, many temples of Mithras became Christian churches. Proponents of the Jesus Myth theory regard this as significant since the lack of dissent appears to them to indicate that the religions were so similar that the prior Mithras-worshippers felt that hardly anything significant had occurred.

Supporters of Jesus' historicity point out that even Christian sources acknowledge that the public celebration of Jesus' birth was adopted from the date of the festival of ], and that this has no bearing on the reliability of the Gospels, since they make no claims about the date. Neither do any Christian churches claim that the date for the celebration is anything other than symbolic.

===Historiography and methodology===

Price and other advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that the inconsistencies between the Gospels, birth stories, genealogies, chronologies, and other parts of the narrative makes them worthless as historical documents. According to these authors, the ] of the Gospels means that they can provide no meaningful historical information about the time Jesus was alleged to have lived, but only about the authors of the Gospels and their own communities .

Although seldom remarked on by New Testament scholars, some advocates of the Jesus Myth theory argue that historians lack any reliable and widely accepted methodology for determining what is historical and what is not. As ], a well respected scholar of early Christianity, comments, ''I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata''. While this is not an argument that Jesus did not exist any more than it is an argument that the Paul described in Acts, or even Napoleon, did not exist, advocates of the Jesus Myth theory believe it does call into question the results of ''historical inquiry'' into Jesus of Nazareth.

Opponents of the theory, including skeptical commentators such as the ], argue that some reliable information can be extracted from the Gospels if consistent critical methodology is used.


==Notes== ==Notes==

Revision as of 23:31, 28 April 2006

Template:Totally disputed

The Jesus Myth is a historical theory usually associated with a skeptical position on the historicity of Jesus, which claims that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure, but was instead an amalgamation of mythological figures. The theory has not found widespread acceptance among Bible scholars and historians and no peer-reviewed work advocating the Jesus Myth theory exists.


History

Some have suggested that the idea dates to New Testament times, citing the Second Epistle of John's warning of "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." All reputable scholars of the period believe that these early quotes refer to docetism, belief that Jesus appeared to people but lacked a genuinely physical body, rather than a belief that Jesus was a completely fabricated figure.

The first proponent of this theory was probably nineteenth century historian Bruno Bauer, a Hegelian thinker who argued that the true founder of Christianity was the Alexandrian Jew Philo, who had adapted Judaic ideas to Hellenic philosophy. His arguments made little impact at the time. Other authors included Edwin Johnson, who argued that Christianity emerged from a combination of liberal trends in Judaism with Gnostic mysticism. Less speculative versions of the theory developed under writers such as A.D. Loman and G.I.P. Bolland. Loman argued that episodes in Jesus's life, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were in reality fictions to justify compilations of pre-existing liberal Jewish sayings. Bolland developed the theory that Christianity developed from Gnosticism and that "Jesus" was a symbolic figure representing Gnostic ideas about godhead.

By the early twentieth century a number of writers had published arguments in favour of the Jesus Myth theory. These treatments were sufficiently influential to merit several book-length responses by traditional historians and New Testament scholars. The most influential of the books arguing for a mythic Jesus was Arthur Drews's The Christ-Myth (1909) which argued that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnostic cult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and Frazerian death-rebirth deities. This combination of arguments became the standard form of the mythic Christ theory.

While aspects of the theory were influential, mainstream scholars at the time rejected the notion. Since Frazerian theories about myth have been largely debunked, and the priority of Gnosticism seriously questioned, the Jesus Myth theory has dwindled in importance.

In recent years, the Jesus Myth has had few proponents in academia but has been advanced by William B. Smith and George Albert Wells (The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth), as well as by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (co-authors of The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess), and the Earl Doherty (author of The Jesus Puzzle).

Claims

Figures alleged to have been models for Jesus include:

Notes

1. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels; Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word; Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the Gospels, and Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus.

2. G.L. Borchert, "Docetism" in Elwell Evangelical Dictionary; Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909/2003; D.C. Duling & N. Perrin, The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History, 1993; "Docetism", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2006; J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. "Book 24 - John's Second Letter". J.B.Phillips, "The New Testament in Modern English", 1962 edition.

See also

References

  • Atwill, Joseph. 2005. The Roman Origins of Christianity.
  • Atwill, Joseph. 2005. Caesar's Messiah.
  • Brodie, Thomas L. 2000. The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an interpretive synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a literary model for the Gospels. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press.
  • Doherty, E.,The Jesus Puzzle (1999; revised edition 2000) ISBN 0968601405
  • Ellegard, Alvar. 1999. Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ. London: Century.
  • France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus.
  • Freke, T. and Gandy, P. The Jesus Mysteries, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, ISBN 0609807986
  • Meier, John. 1987. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.
  • Price, Robert. 2004. New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash. In Neusner, J., Avery-Peck, A., eds. The Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation of Formative Judaism.
  • Price, Robert. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
  • Price, Robert. 2000. Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
  • Sanders, E. P. 1995. The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin.
  • Sherwin-White, A. N. 1963. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford.
  • Theissen, G., and Merz, A. 1998. The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Minneapolis: Fortress
  • Thompson, Thomas L. 2005. The Messiah Myth. New York: Basic Books.
  • Van Voorst, R. Jesus Outside of the New Testament.
  • Wells, G. A. 1999. The Jesus Myth. Peru, IL: Open Court (Carus Publishing)
  • Wells, G. A. The Historical Evidence for Jesus.

External links

Supporting a Jesus-Myth theory

Supporting a historical Jesus

Categories: